Thursday, April 12, 2012

April 12, 1945-April 12, 2012




AUTHOR'S NOTE:

Sixty-seven years ago today, Franklin Delano Roosevelt died suddenly of a cerebral hemorrhage in Warm Springs, Georgia. The reason the United States is in the mess it is in (in my humble opinion anyway) is because the people of this diseased country have forgotten the economic lessons the New Deal taught us. This piece is an edited compilation of four different articles I wrote between the years 2007 and 2012 about FDR and his legacy to the American people. I know, I'm cheating. So sue me!
`

"Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred. I should like to have it said of my first Administration that in it, the forces of selfishness and of lust for power met their match. I should like to have it said of my second Administration that in it, these forces met their master."

-Franklin D. Roosevelt, during the 1936 campaign


It was said of him at the time of his death on April 12, 1945, "Although he never regained the use of his legs - much as he wanted to; much as he tried - he taught a crippled nation how to walk again."

He was the pampered son of privilege from
Hyde Park, NY whose battle with polio, begun in the summer of 1921, ingrained into his soul a deep and abiding empathy for the suffering of others that had previously been somewhat lacking in him. Through the development of a series of radical, revolutionary programs - unparalleled in history - which his administration brought into the main stream of American social engineering, he was able to usher millions of regular people into the ranks of a middle class that had not even existed before he took the oath of office on March 4, 1933. It is now almost a cliche but it is as true as the rising sun: He saved capitalism by "tempering its excesses." The people would elect him to an unprecedented four terms, something that will never happen again. Franklin Delano Roosevelt was - beyond any doubt - the greatest president in American history.

`

His smiling, jolly disposition which was always on display for the press and the news reel photographers, belied the hidden reality of a deeply complex man - many layered, indefinable, even tormented. His closest confidantes would testify years after his passing that they always had the feeling they never really knew him. Emotionally, he would keep even his loved ones at bay - so difficult was it for him to reach out on an intimate level to another human being. Throughout his life he would project to the world and to those around him, a cheerful - albeit guarded - amiability.

That he could be deviou
s at times, there is no doubt. He enjoyed setting members of his own cabinet against one another in order to to play for time in pursuit of the desired solution to whatever pending political problem that might have been manifesting itself at any given moment. But his all-too-obvious human frailties should not distract us from the larger picture: We are a better nation because of Franklin Roosevelt - and far too many Americans are abysmally ignorant of this fact.



Every once in a while, I visit the Roosevelt mansion and museum in Hyde Park, less than forty miles from where I now sit. It is the birth place and the final resting place of the man who saved America from the corruption and greed of its elitist class, and more than likely prevented a Communist revolution. What is largely forgotten is the fact the the American Communist Party, in response to the economic horror that riddled the American landscape during the administration of Herbert Clark Hoover, was gaining serious ground by 1933. It was only after Franklin D. Roosevelt was able to prove to his fellow countrymen and women that the American way of government could work for the benefit of all the people, that it withered and died. I always walk away from the Roosevelt Library feeling better about America. The place is a gentle reminder that, what once worked so beautifully for "WE THE PEOPLE", can indeed be made to work again.

On entering the grounds of the FDR Library, a person with a decent sense of historical perspective is overcome by the aura of Roosevelt - or, as I like to call it "the Frankie vibe". A new exhibit which was added in 2008 is called "The First Hundred Days". It is a grim reminder of what life was like for too many people in this country eighty-years-ago. It might also be a disturbing precursor to what may yet come to pass. We shall see.

It is not by accident
that FDR has been the most talked about former president in recent years. The similarities (and there are a number of them) between the economic calamities of 1932 and today are close enough that one should be forgiven for breaking out in a cold sweat. The situation is not - at this writing anyway - at the point of no return - or at least I don't think it is. But while walking through the corridors of the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library and Museum, it is next-to-impossible to avoid asking the musical question: Why? Why did the American people essentially reject the tried and true philosophy of the New Deal three decades ago and replace it with the "trickle down" insanity of the Reagan/Bush era? After thirty years of consistently voting against their economic interests, the middle class has awaken to find themselves teetering on the edge of the precipice. Did you have a nice little nappy time, kiddies?
'

For my money, the most interesting part of the museum is the Eleanor Roosevelt Wing. God blessed America by uniting this extraordinary man with so extraordinary a woman. We now know that theirs was a difficult, troubled union. Eleanor's discovery in 1918 of Franklin's love affair with her secretary, Lucy Paige Mercer, forever ended the intimacies of their marriage. But the political partnership between these two remarkable human beings - which slowly evolved in the years after he was stricken with infantile paralysis in 1921 - would change the way the American people viewed their relationship with government.(HISTORICAL NOTE: Lucy Mercer was a distant cousin of mine. We are both direct descendants of the Carroll family of Maryland, America's first Catholic dynasty; one of whom, Charles Carroll, signed his name to the Declaration of Independence. Once while talking the tour of the mansion I told our guide, Ranger John Fox, "I come from a long line of home wreckers").

Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt were guided by the peculiar notion that our government is the servant of the people. According to them the purpose of representation in Washington involved a whole lot more than making war and passing bad laws. For their effort and collective vision, the sociological face of America would be permanently altered - or at least until 1981.
`
Almost everyone is under the impression that the modern civil rights movement began on that December afternoon in 1955 when an exhausted Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus to a white man. They're off by almost seventeen years. December 1, 1955 merely marked the day the child went out into the world for the very first time. April 9, 1939 was the moment she breathed her first breath.
`
The Civil Rights Movement in America was born on that day. As fate or luck would have it, this historic day would coincide with Easter Sunday in that year. That was the day that Mrs. Roosevelt made the arrangements for African American contralto Marian Anderson (photo left) to perform a concert on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial after the Daughters of the American Revolution denied her the opportunity to sing at Constitution Hall because of the color of her skin. Eleanor Roosevelt, a life-long member of the DAR, resigned in disgust at that moment.

On that sacred Easter Sunday, under the statue of the great emancipator, as Marian Anderson sang Schubert's Ave Maria before an integrated audience of seventy-five thousand people - and millions more across the land via the new medium of radio - who among the multitudes gathered would have dared to dream that they were bearing witness to the beginning of a long chain of events that would lead to the inauguration of the first African American president seventy years later?

Hooray for Marian Anderson and Eleanor Roosevelt!
 
 `
"There is nothing I love as much as a good fight."

-Franklin Delano Roosevelt


There are a lot of good reasons why Franklin D. Roosevelt is usually rated by historians as one of the three greatest presidents in the history of this country. One of those reasons is because the guy loved a good fight - and never shied away from one. He never tried to appear "above it all". He loved to say, "We must take action. NOW!" And he took action, Buster - you'd better believe it. That is why most of the people who write history hold him in such high regard today. FDR was a fighter. Are you listening, President Obama?


Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt were as good as it has ever gotten in American politics. When he died someone remarked that a century into the future, people would get down on their knees and thank God for Franklin D. Roosevelt. I can't speak for the people of 2045, but sixty-seven years after his passing - two thirds of a century - this person is very grateful indeed. And take into consideration that I didn't even live through that era. When I was born he had been dead for thirteen years.
 
And he has been
gone for a very long time, hasn't he. My mother will be eighty-one on August fifth. On the day Franklin Roosevelt died she was not yet in high school. Maybe that is related to the reason why the legacy of the New Deal is on life support these days. There aren't many people alive today who remember what life was like in the United States before FDR - and those who do remember were mere toddlers when the stock market crashed in October of 1929. In 1932 the voting age was twenty-one. The youngest person to cast his or her vote for Roosevelt that year would be one-hundred-and-one years old today. Think about that.

It has been said that those who ref
use to remember their history are doomed to repeat it. It's so true. Just look out your window onto America's economic landscape. It was never supposed to get like this again. Why did it? What happened?

The people of thi
s country forgot about Franklin Delano Roosevelt. That's what happened. Show most Americans a photograph of his smiling face and they will not even be able to identify him. That's gratitude for you! And if the spin doctors for the plutocracy have their way, his name (and good works) will be eradicated from America's consciousness forever.
`
They've already started with their onslaught of lies and disinformation. Since there are few left who remember and loved the living, breathing FDR, and who can attest to what he meant to the working people of the United States, now is the perfect time for the far right to commence with the assassination of his character - to demean everything he ever stood for - in other words: progressive policies. It is now a common right wing tactical talking point to preface the term "New Deal" by using words such as "the failure of" or "the disastrous". It's starting to work, too. There are people out there who see President Roosevelt, not as being the architect of a new American social structure, but rather as a contemporary of John Dillinger.
`
Thirty-one years ago, FDR's legacy, the New Deal, came under assault by the reactionary political ideology of the so-called Reagan Revolution. As a result, today the middle class that he literally brought into being is in danger of total extinction. The privatization of America, begun during the administrations of Reagan and Bush I, passively enabled during the Clinton years - and accelerated under under Bush II - has decimated the quality of life in a country that used to be a nice place in which to live.

From the early 1940s until well into the 1970s, working men and women in the United States thrived because of the programs put into place by President Roosevelt and the brilliant men - and one woman, Francis Perkins - who comprised his cabinet (the "Brain Trust" as they were known in the press). Home ownership was at a historical high and the chances for the children of people of modest means to receive a college education were better than they had ever been before and, sadly, might ever be again. During this period, the rich - the plutocracy - had to contribute their equitable share to the nation's tax burden. Corporate America was also obligated to pay into the system as the price of doing business in a country with such an abundance of wealth and prosperity. The result of this was a social and economic infrastructure that was the strongest, most envied in the world. All of that has changed - possibly forever? Time will speak untold volumes. 

"Franklin D. Roosevelt is dead. His policies survive but we're doing something about that."

-Rush Limbaugh, Autumn 2007

Pay no mind to the right wing scream machine. We're a better nation today because in 1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt sought and won the office of the presidency. As I stated earlier, very few people are alive today who have a conscious memory of what life was like in America for ordinary people before the New Deal ushered in a great new society for this country. Because of FDR, people began to see their government as a partner. It's been one of my missions to make sure that my generation understands this. They've pretty much forgotten that it was Roosevelt's liberal policies that saved America. Today many see the government as their enemy - and in some cases that's the truth. It doesn't have to be that way. We should strive for the perfection of government - not its abolition.

Walking away from the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library and Museum, one is reminded that what once worked so well for the American people can indeed be made to work again. That is not meant to imply that we are the same country we were eighty-years ago - we're not. But the basic premise of President Roosevelt's legacy - that government can be a tool to provide for the comfort and happiness of all people - is an idea that is far from dead. Like the man said:

"So first of all, let me express my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is...."
`
Aw, hell. You know the rest of it.

Tom Degan
Goshen, NY
tomdegan@frontiernet.net

SUGGESTED READING:

No Ordinary Time
by Doris Kearns-Goodwin

`
The best book ever written about the White House during the twelve crucial years that Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt lived there. TEN STARS!

AFTERTHOUGHT:

The photograph at the bottom of this piece of the author of this hideous commie screed was taken on February 11, 2012 at the Franklin D. Roosevelt Library and Museum in Hyde Park, NY. The photographer was Lori Buttafuoco DeGeorge.

SUGGESTED LISTENING:

The Second Bill of Rights, as articulated by Franklin Roosevelt on January 11, 1944. Sadly, he passed away a year later. His dream for the eternal economic security of the American people would never be fulfilled:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwUL9tJmypI

He spoke to us then, He speaks to us still. It doesn't get any better than the Frankster. Seriously.

SUGGESTED VIEWING:

Here is a link to view Marian Anderson's historic performance at the Lincoln Memorial seventy-three years ago this week. From a Hearst Movietone Newsreel:
 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XF9Quk0QhSE

This moment was the beginning of the end for Jim Crow in America, A special "THANK YOU" to Mary Jaco for posting this on my Facebook page!


For more recent postings on this site please go to the link below:

"The Rant" by Tom Degan

Franklin D. Roosevelt would have approved.

81 Comments:

At 11:41 AM, Blogger Nancy, Near Philadelphia said...

Thanks for this, Tom. I grew up in a home where there were no family photographs on display, but in our den was a print of The Unfinished Portrait. When I was ten, "Sunrise at Campobello" opened in Philadelphia and in an unprecedented action, my father bought tickets for the whole family to attend -- the only time we ever did such a thing.

Back in the 80s, on the way home from a trip to the Maritime Provinces, my husband, children, and I stopped at Campobello. Hyde Park is on our list for the coming year.

 
At 5:49 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

(Maine Wire) — Rep. Chuck Kruger (D-Thomaston), the Democrat chair of the Maine legislature’s Moderate Caucus, used his Twitter account to express his view that former Vice President Dick Cheney should be executed. This comment has led some to question the validity of Kruger’s moderate credentials.

More Love from the party of FDR

 
At 5:51 PM, Anonymous Ron Baldwin said...

Hey Anonymous,

Yeah, those tweets about Ann Romney are deplorable.

Are you trying deliberately to sabatoge beautiful memories of one of our greatest Presidents or is this just how your thought processes work?

 
At 5:57 PM, Anonymous Ron Baldwin said...

Tom,

I did not think you could understate the grand accomplishments of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt but I am afraid you did (understate them). Wink.

One of his great achievements was the GI Bill.

In 1945 the population of the USA was about 125 million. Of those about 16 million had served in the armed forces and were about to undergo a mass demobilization. Many thought that many job seekers appearing all at once would throw us back into the Great Depression, Part II.

The greatest generation that won WW2 was quite undereducated because of the Great Depression. Roosevelt encouraged Congress to pass and he signed the GI Bill. Under that bill the demobilized GIs could join the “52/20” Club. A year (52 weeks) drawing $20 a week to do whatever they wanted to do. In those days a good apartment could be rented for about $25 a month.

Alternatively they could apply to any college and if accepted the GI Bill paid all tuition, books, and fees, and provided $75 a month for living expenses. Or they could apply for assistance to learn a trade. Millions took the opportunity to do this, also providing jobs for those expanding educational facilities to accommodate the returning GIs. That was the same generation that in the 1960’s sent men to the moon.

Another benefit of the GI Bill was the availability of low or no down payments and reasonable interest costs to buy a home. Housing starts went through the roof (pun intended) and transformed suburbia building all those homes.

All that pent-up demand meant plenty of jobs and a well-educated work force. We started an economic boom that did not start to unravel until the 1980s when the “trickle-down” theory was promulgated on a restaurant napkin. And the capstone of that unraveling was led by Senator Phil Gramm when Congress abolished another lesson of the Great Depression, the Glass-Steagall Act, which separated depository banks and investment banks. That along with other atrocities led us to the edge of a global financial meltdown in September 2008.

 
At 7:38 PM, Anonymous Vanessa said...

Tom Degan,

I find it appalling that you worship such a Dictator as FDR.

FDR's Grand Coulee ended wild salmon runs on the Columbia. FDR is responsible for the near extinction of the species of Salmon that once swam the Colombia. These fish sustained the Columbia Basin’s Native Americans for thousands of years. The dam wiped out ancient villages, fishing spots, and burial grounds. 2,000 members of the Colville Confederated Tribes and about 250 members of the Spokane tribe of which my grandfather was a member had to be relocated.

The government hired Woodie Guthrie to sing propogandist socialist songs about the project with the most famous of these being "Roll on Columbia, Roll On." My grandfather and his people modified Woodie's song to "Roll FDR off the Coulee, Right Off."

 
At 5:34 AM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "More Love from the party of FDR"
I, for one, don't think he should be executed. That's for the trial (that will never happen) to decide. And not just for Cheney. For GW Bush, Rumsfeld and Tenet, too. And Obama and Holder, for failing to seriously investigate, much less prosecute. The Convention Against Torture, rule of law and justice aren't just supposed to apply to other countries. When Yugoslavia messily fell apart, we acted accordingly, with investigations, trials and sentences. When Syria tortured Maher Arar, even though they were doing our own dirty work for us (on an innocent man, to boot) our position should not change. The City on the Hill, with its secret prisons, black sites, torture and indefinite detention, has an ugly underbelly.

 
At 5:42 AM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

When you come to Hyde Park get in touch with me Nancy. I'll give you and the fam the guided tour!

And thank you for your mention of the GI Bill, Ron. Just one of the many things I left out.

All the best,

Tom Degan

 
At 6:31 AM, Blogger Brick1101 said...

Most people today have no idea what life was like before the New Deal. The book: Freedom From Fear The American People in Depression and War, 1929-1945 by David M. Kennedy is an excellent history of this time in the USA. Ten Lost Years 1929-1939 Memories of Canadians Who Survived the Depression by Barry Broadfoot is an excellent oral history of how everyday Canadians survived the depression with out a safety net. This should be a "must read" for the teabaggers who want to turn the clock back 100 years to see how things could be again.

 
At 6:40 AM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

Good one, Brick. It would be nice if the Tea party types would do a little research. Unfortunately that's never going to happen, ignorance being such a blissful state.

 
At 7:01 AM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Tom Degan, remind them of this picture.

 
At 7:18 AM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Vanessa, it's not worship. I don't think there are any presidents who did not do dick moves. None smell like roses, but some smell better than others.

 
At 9:45 AM, Blogger Harley A. said...

FDR has had an enormous impact on this country, whether you think it good or bad. My wife's grandpa (who ideologically is conservative) will never vote for a Republican. I think his life during the depression and his attributing the recovery to FDR's policies has driven that. And, I've learned not to discuss SS with grandpa. It's interesting. If I'm ever up that way, I do think a stop by the museum would be worthwhile. While I don't agree with all he did, I do appreciate the emergency nature of the conditions he was under and need to "do something". At least he did lead - I'll give him that.

What I don't understand is the hatred of Reagan by the left. To a true conservative, he was lack-luster at best - if not a down-right dissappointment. Oh, he could work a crowd and he was charismatic. And he provided a positive face when we needed it. But gov't grew under him more than it did under Carter and Ford. Budgets grew. Deregulation under Reagan is ususally over-estimated in scope. In fact, I think he showed he could compromise and try to work with those across the aisle for the most part. To say he radically changed the trajectory of our economy is over-statement, in my opinion. And, if he did, the Dems were willing accomplices. The "trickle-down" economics was ideology and window dressing rather than anything actual or substantive. What radically HAS changed our economy are globalization and too much debt - not any single man in DC.

 
At 11:47 AM, Anonymous boltok said...

Second Bill of Rights

The US Constitution has a very clear method of amending its terms. If the population, at any time, felt strongly about what FDR prescribed, an amendment could have been made. Then or now.

The truth is the majority doesn't buy it. FDR attacked the supreme court instead. Liberals have been backdooring their wish list by stacking courts with law writers.

FDR was a menace, most of his programs were ineffective. Their ultimate dislocation from economic fundamentals will be the end of this country.

 
At 5:18 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Modusoperandi I gotta laugh how you as a Canadian seem to feel like the last word about USA politics and history.

 
At 5:26 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thank you Tom and other liberals for turning the shooting of T. Martion into an excuse for real race hate crimes..FDR would be proud.

The name of Trayvon Martin was invoked again Wednesday night in Gainesville during an attack by a group that police say stomped on a white man who was scuffling with a black robbery suspect on the Bo Diddley Community Plaza.

The robbery suspect, Carl Milton Babb, 50, had been released from prison earlier in the day after serving more than two years in prison for the same crime he is accused of committing Wednesday — snatching a purse from a woman near the downtown plaza.

According to a Gainesville Police Department arrest report, Babb approached a woman eating dinner at the Lunchbox on the plaza at about 8:50 p.m. and asked her for a light.

When she said she didn’t have one, Babb took off with her purse, which contained her $500 cellphone, according to the report.

The woman’s dinner companion and another person took off after Babb.

When her friend caught up with Babb, according to the police report, Babb punched him in the face and grabbed his hair, but he was able to keep Babb pinned down, according to the report.

The scene attracted a crowd, and a number of people on the plaza approached Babb and the Good Samaritan, who tried to explain that Babb had just stolen his friend’s purse.

GPD spokeswoman Cpl. Angelina Valuri said some members of the crowd shouted “Trayvon!” and that at least three of members of the crowd began stomping on the hands of the woman’s friend to force him to let go of Babb.

It was the second attack in the past week in Gainesville in which assailants yelled the first name of Trayvon Martin, the unarmed black 17-year-old who was shot and killed by crime-watch volunteer George Zimmerman as the teen walked back to his father’s girlfriend’s apartment in Sanford on Feb. 26.

 
At 6:20 PM, Anonymous Wendell Willke said...

Some mornings during the autumn of 1933, when the unemployment rate was 22 percent, FDR, before getting into his wheelchair, sat in bed, surrounded by economic advisers, setting the price of gold. One morning he said he might raise it 21 cents: "It's a lucky number because it's three times seven." His Treasury secretary wrote that if people knew how gold was priced "they would be frightened."

The Depression's persistence, partly a result of such policy flippancy, was frightening. In 1937, during the depression within the Depression, there occurred the steepest drop in industrial production ever recorded. By January 1938 the unemployment rate was back up to 17.4 percent. The war, not the New Deal, defeated the Depression. Franklin Roosevelt's success was in altering the practice of American politics.

This transformation was actually assisted by the misguided policies -- including government-created uncertainties that paralyzed investors -- that prolonged the Depression. This seemed to validate the notion that the crisis was permanent, so government must be forever hyperactive.

 
At 6:24 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous "Modusoperandi I gotta laugh how you as a Canadian seem to feel like the last word about USA politics and history."
I know, right? It's, like, you cross the border and the facts of history change!
I sure wish I was an American, in America, doing American things like watching American football and eating American cheese.
Then you could dismiss whateveritisIsay, often including citations, for entirely different reasons. My hair, probably. Darn pompadour!

 
At 6:41 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Dearest Wendell Willke, the dip in the Depression's recovery was due to austerity policies coming in before the recovery was strong enough. That's why it's referred to as the Mistake of 1937.
And, yes, WWII boosted the economy. Think of it as a giant, inefficient, multi-year Stimulus where most things bought make foreigners explode. Much like now, when it's the only Stimulus both parties wholeheartedly accept.
Also, since a cursory googling makes it appear that you simply cut and pasted (from, or derivative from, George Will), something about gold, inflation, and fighting a farm crisis.

 
At 8:28 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Best question to ask a smart ass Canadian,
Name three Canadian military heros. You have to have balls to be a hero, something the great north is sadly very sort in supply of.

 
At 12:52 AM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Anonymous;
Romeo Dallaire, the Canadians at Juno beach and these at Vimy.

 
At 4:34 AM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

Canadian war heroes? Can't think of any? Here's a list to start with:

Cpl. Frederick George Topham

Pilot Officer Andrew Charles Mynarski

Sgt. Major John Robert Osborn

Capt Paul Triquet

Major David Vivian Currie

Capt Frederick Thornton Peters

Flt Lt. David Ernest Hornell

Rev. John Weir Foote

Sqdn. Ldr. Ian Willoughby Bazalgette

Sgt. Aubrey Cosens

Pte. Ernest Alvia Smith

Major Charles Ferguson Hoey

Lt. Col. Charles Cecil Ingersoll Merritt

Lt. Robert Hampton Gray

Major John Keefer Mahony

Major Frederick Albert Tilston

In addition to this list, scores of thousands of Canadians gave their lives in WW II

Your ignorance - not to mention your arrogance in assuming that there are no Canadian war heroes - is quite impressive. Take a bow.

Sincerely,

Tom Degan

 
At 5:19 AM, Blogger Tom Degan said...

In Burma, on the 16th February 1944, Major Hoey’s company formed a part of a force which was ordered to capture a position at all costs.

After a night march through enemy held territory the force was met at the foot of the position by heavy machine-gun fire.

Major Hoey personally led his company under heavy machine-gun and rifle fire right up to the objective. Although wounded at least twice in the leg and head, he seized a Bren gun from one of his men and firing from the hip, led his company on to the objective. In spite of his wounds the company had difficulty keeping up with him, and Major Hoey reached the enemy strong post first, where he killed all the occupants before being mortally wounded.

Major Hoey’s outstanding gallantry and leadership, his total disregard of personal safety and his grim determination to reach the objective resulted in the capture of this vital position.

He was a Canadian.

 
At 8:06 AM, Anonymous boltok said...

Regarding MO, his ramblings will become significant when he moves to the US and gives half his money in taxes (or at least exceed the 20% +/- paid by Obama/Biden) to the scummy reprobates that currently run our country. He should be happy that he has us as a trading partner and to provide defense for free. Otherwise you could call Canada Siberia.

I figured out why TD likes FDR so much. They must be related. They have the same forehead.

 
At 8:55 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

boltek: "...his ramblings will become significant when he moves to the US and gives half his money in taxes..."

When have you ever paid 50% on your (federal) taxes? Yeah, just as I thought -- never.

Exposing your willful ignorance (which is common), Canada's income tax system is more heavily progressive toward the highest income earners, as it should be here, and while Canada's income tax rate is higher on average, the bottom 50% of the population is taxed about the same on income as in the U.S.

Also, Canada has a national goods and services tax of 5% on most purchases (not the case here) which increases the tax burden on Canadian low-income earners due.

You've never had it so good! Yet, you want more...

 
At 10:39 AM, Anonymous boltok said...

JG
You are so keenly perceptive. I recently lived in California and will give you, as an example, my tax profile in percentage terms.

Income 100%
After employment tax 97%
After Poperty tax 93%
After State tax 86%
After Fed 57%

When MO brings his lame socialist ass to america and hands over 43% of what he earns to scummy reprobates, I will listen to him. I know 43% is hardly enough for theiving liberal socialist like you.

After that contribution to the common wellbeing I also contribute to charities. I usually keep around half of what I make.

I have an idea, why dont you move to Canada. That way their will be two identifiable opinions and I could justify not giving a shit about.

 
At 11:07 AM, Anonymous Vanessa said...

Modusoperandi,

I can smell the Canadian liquor on your breath clear across the border!

 
At 12:10 PM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 12:11 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Examples abound here, of ignorance of history going hand in hand with ignorance of current events.

I've corrected them before, but they only get more angry when I show them the truth.

Glenn Beck University marches...backwards into ignorance.

No wonder the radical Right hates education, jounalism and science that doesn't fit their political agenda.

So instead of just pissing them off, I'll contribute another fact from history.

One of the top aces in the First World War was Canadian Billy Bishop. He was credited with 72 victories. Counting unconfirmed kills over German lines, he scored higher than Richtofen, the Red Baron.

And I'm not even Canadian. So apparently MO is correct. Information does seem to cross the border...to open minds, anyway.

 
At 12:13 PM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...

"the bottom 50% of the population is taxed about the same on income as in the U.S."

So they pay no Federal Income tax just like the bottom 50% do here in the USA?

 
At 12:22 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Just the Facts! "So they pay no Federal Income tax just like the bottom 50% do here in the USA?"
Yeah! Take that the working poor, the unemployed, students and the elderly!

 
At 12:50 PM, Anonymous Vanessa said...

In our now warped "socially just" world, to be politically correct, we have to bring up the Canadians and the Tuskeegee Air Men in WWII even though their contributions (which I respect) were very small drops in the bucket. Of course people like MO will amplify these small drops, put on their rose (or orange) colored glasses, and pretend they were much bigger than they were. No doubt very strong Canadian whiskey and hydroponic pot also add to the these distorted beliefs.

 
At 1:25 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Ok, now I'm the one getting pissed off about this historical idiocy.

Anyone truly respecting the sacrifices of WWII veterans would NEVER call them "small drops".

Would that also be true of Americans killed in Bush's war in Iraq? Didn't think so.

Really. "Small drops" is a sign of respect?

Ask the men who served with them. Ask the men whose lives were saved by their actions.

I have to wonder what this person's real problem is, aside from ignorance of history.

Too much whiskey, maybe?

If this person reflects the attitudes of most Americans, then we are a nation of assholes.

Fortunately for our sake, this fool is in the fringe minority.

 
At 1:43 PM, Anonymous Vanessa said...

Dave Dubya,

Good try at twisting my post to your distorted world, but The point of my post was that the Canadians and Tuskegee Air Men were a VERY SMALL PART of the war effort, but people like you and MO will blow these contributions WAY OUT OF PROPORTION. You are a big blowhard.

 
At 2:17 PM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...

MO,
If you were in charge of the federal tax rates of the USA, what would they be?
Just asking.

Vanessa,
You go girl!!

 
At 2:30 PM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...

MO, you are a piece of work! You know that link you provided in your post of 12:22? You should have read it. Below is last part of the link you posted.
Still waiting for a thank you note from the 48% and their supporters for my giving them my income that I worked for so they would not have to pay the Feds any income tax.
Not holding my breath for same.

Kim Dixon
Reuters 2/16/2012

Who are the 46 percent that pay no federal income taxes?

The Tax Policy Center’s Roberton Williams says about half the people in this group pay no income taxes because they earn too little.

(The TPC is a joint effort by the left-leaning Urban Institute and centrist Brookings Institution, but its director is Donald Marron, a former member of Republican president George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers.)

He gives the example of a couple with two children earning less than $26,400 and paying no federal income tax this year because their $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero.

“The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax,” he says.

What about the rest of them? TPC finds that three-fourths of the rest are households paying no income tax because of provisions that benefit senior citizens and low-income working families with children.
Some of the big credits include: the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Child Credit, created under Democratic president Bill Clinton but doubled in a 2001 tax act signed by Republican president George W. Bush.

The problem of voters not paying income tax is compounded by the fact that many who do not also get non-cash subsidies from the federal government, so their true income level is higher than it appears when only counting dollar income.

Alex Brill, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said it is important to note how the numbers not paying income taxes have grown over time.

“What concerns me is not that low-income households pay no federal income tax but that lawmakers have consistently sought opportunities to increase the number of households excluded from paying income tax,” Brill said, noting expansion of the child credit.

 
At 2:32 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Vanessa,

Brainwashed fanatics amaze me.

What's the point with bringing up the Tuskegee Airmen, along with demeaning Canadians? Besides blind hate and possible racism?

Some asshole says, "Name three Canadian military heros".

We mentioned many more than three.

Who, and just how, did anyone blow anything "way out of proportion"?

Besides you.

Your ignorance was first shown calling FDR a dictator. We have also seen you demeaning others' sacrifices in WWII.

You don't see anyone saying your grandfather's fish and three thousand tribesmen were "small drops" do you? No, you don't. Most of us are decent human beings who won't spout such condescending crap.

If you had the smallest of clues on the real "war effort" you'd know the Russians were a much larger factor in defeating Hitler than Americans. You would know Canadians were fighting and dying long before Americans in that war.

Your contempt and disrespect are matched only by your ignorance.

Yet you're free to spew even more. Go ahead, "educate" us further, why don't you?

 
At 2:42 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

I see Just the Troll shares contempt and disrespect for WWII vets as well. Probably because they voted for FDR.

As long as their worship of Mammon and Big Money won't conflict with it, there's no group the radicals will not eagerly hate.

Such pathetic and cultish ignorance and arrogance.

 
At 2:52 PM, Anonymous Blog Patroller said...

Looks like Dave Dubya is having a meltdown. Look at his disrespectful and hate filled comment about gay persons from another blog (I thought gay persons had finally reached equal status in our society):


Dave Dubya said...
Yes,
This has been quite obvious in his homo-suggestive comments.

He does seem quite obsessed with watching men in the shower and bathroom as well. Have you noticed that quaint pattern?

Poor little fellow. He's insecure, and jealous that, unlike me, he can't do a real man's job. That's hard enough on him.

He's also ashamed of his job and social standing, and afraid to let anyone know about his mop squeezing job. Now he's having a tough time suppressing his naughty urges for other men.

Oh, the deep and hopeless shame of it all. He can only safely express his shame and guilt through hatred for us. Perhaps this is a closeted love/hate thing he has for us.

He is obviously very confused...about most things in fact.

No wonder he feels such insecurity as a right wing extremist. This is why he needs to project his gay little feelings towards us.

I wonder if his fellow housekeepers see him this way too...

I bet they've known for some time.

11:37 AM EDT



Dave, you need help.

 
At 3:10 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

How helpful, Just the Facts/blog patroller.

Where's the context? Why don't you link to the discussion? Are you the offended gay person?

Don't you want others to see your comments about watching men in showers and in the bathroom? Let them see your homophobic projection.

Ashamed of something?

 
At 3:25 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Tom,
I won't respond to the small-minded hateful assholes any further here. They create a very negative environment when they fly their colors with such ignorance and animosity.

I'll be happy to let Just the Troll/two cents/blog patroller/anonymous fool display his ugly nature without further ado.

His insecure nature shall surely compel him to spew more hate at me.

As FDR said of the radical Right elites and fascists of his day, I welcome his hatred.

So spew on, pathetic little one. Show us all what gutless punks like to say when they are anonymous and safely out of direct contact, free from consequences of their rudeness.

 
At 3:42 PM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...

DD, is this what you mean by creating a very negative environment when they fly their colors with such ignorance and animosity?
Using the very source of a Canadian liberal to disprove their position?


"MO, you are a piece of work! You know that link you provided in your post of 12:22? You should have read it. Below is last part of the link you posted.
Still waiting for a thank you note from the 48% and their supporters for my giving them my income that I worked for so they would not have to pay the Feds any income tax.
Not holding my breath for same.

Kim Dixon
Reuters 2/16/2012

Who are the 46 percent that pay no federal income taxes?

The Tax Policy Center’s Roberton Williams says about half the people in this group pay no income taxes because they earn too little.

(The TPC is a joint effort by the left-leaning Urban Institute and centrist Brookings Institution, but its director is Donald Marron, a former member of Republican president George W. Bush’s Council of Economic Advisers.)

He gives the example of a couple with two children earning less than $26,400 and paying no federal income tax this year because their $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero.

“The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax,” he says.

What about the rest of them? TPC finds that three-fourths of the rest are households paying no income tax because of provisions that benefit senior citizens and low-income working families with children.
Some of the big credits include: the Earned Income Tax Credit, and the Child Credit, created under Democratic president Bill Clinton but doubled in a 2001 tax act signed by Republican president George W. Bush.

The problem of voters not paying income tax is compounded by the fact that many who do not also get non-cash subsidies from the federal government, so their true income level is higher than it appears when only counting dollar income.

Alex Brill, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said it is important to note how the numbers not paying income taxes have grown over time.

“What concerns me is not that low-income households pay no federal income tax but that lawmakers have consistently sought opportunities to increase the number of households excluded from paying income tax,” Brill said, noting expansion of the child credit.

Respond to this post DD before you go off with your tail between your legs.

 
At 4:10 PM, Anonymous Ron Baldwin said...

Just The Facts cited (2:30 PM) Donald Marron’s “example of a couple with two children earning less than $26,400 and paying no federal income tax this year because their $11,600 standard deduction and four exemptions of $3,700 each reduce their taxable income to zero.”

Apparently they are freeloaders.

Well not quite.

The $26,400 earned by those “freeloaders” resulted in $4,039.20 going to the Federal Government for Social Security and Medicare. That’s 15.3%, which is more than the 14% of income taxes paid by Mitt Romney and the 13.9% of income taxes paid by Rick Scott who spent $73 million of his own money to buy the Governorship of Florida.

And that is before the couple pays ANY income taxes. It gets worse until the individual earnings top the maximum earnings subject to Social Security (at$106,800).

 
At 5:12 PM, Anonymous Vanessa said...

Dave Dubya

"As FDR said of the radical Right elites and fascists of his day, I welcome his hatred."

Go right on worshipping FDR and the failure of his central planning trickle down economics which FAILED FOR DECADES!

By the way I am a lesbian and find your posts against gays highly offensive and borderline hate crime.

And talking about fish and the environment, the EPA will block energy corporations from opening a new site because a few animals on the "endangered species of the day" list may be compromised, but thousands upon thousands of birds have been killed from wind energy where we hear only crickets from the left. Global warming Nazis and Environmental Nazis are a threat to this country.

 
At 5:38 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Dave Dubya "Anyone truly respecting the sacrifices of WWII veterans would NEVER call them 'small drops'."
No. Vanessa is right. The largest sacrifices are the most important ones. That's why she puts a priority on the Soviet Union which, as you mentioned, (along with China) lost more than the US. To wit, the USSR lost twenty times as many.
I shudder to think what she'll do when she realizes what her current argument does to her original argument.


Vanessa "Good try at twisting my post to your distorted world, but The point of my post was that the Canadians and Tuskegee Air Men were a VERY SMALL PART of the war effort, but people like you and MO will blow these contributions WAY OUT OF PROPORTION."
Yeah! Take that, Poland! Serves it right for only losing 1/6th of its entire population.

"Go right on worshipping FDR and the failure of his central planning trickle down economics which FAILED FOR DECADES!"
Exactly! I'm with Vanessa! Let's tear up what's left of the New Deal! Who's with me?! To the Capital!

"Global warming Nazis and Environmental Nazis are a threat to this country."
You vil carpool. Ve hef vays uf making you pool. [/environazi]


Just the Facts! "MO, If you were in charge of the federal tax rates of the USA, what would they be?"
Whatever's needed to maximize consistent growth (where a rising tide lifts all boats, as it were) while lessening disparity (disparity, even ignoring the other issues like hurting social stability, itself hurts growth).

"You should have read it. Below is last part of the link you posted."
I did read it. Have you tried reading it while not being an asshole?

"Still waiting for a thank you note from the 48% and their supporters..."
Shorter Just the Facts: "The problem with America is that the poor have too much!"

"...for my giving them my income that I worked for so they would not have to pay the Feds any income tax."
Exactly. Oh. Are you a Blue State? Blue states are far more likely to give more to DC than they get back. The converse (exempt Texas) is true for the Red States. I believe I mentioned this before, on this very site.
Going Galt doesn't sound so nice when you'd be screwing your own Tribe, hmm?

 
At 5:38 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Dave Dubya "As long as their worship of Mammon and Big Money won't conflict with it, there's no group the radicals will not eagerly hate."
I believe it was covered by Supply-Side Jesus in the Gospel of Franklin's Parable of the Bad Samaritan ("But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came where the man was; and when he saw him, he told him to get a job").


Ron Baldwin "The $26,400 earned by those “freeloaders” resulted in $4,039.20 going to the Federal Government for Social Security and Medicare."
What? That's an outrage! That SS money should be going directly to Wall Street and the Medicare money should be going directly to private insurance companies! Vanessa didn't fight and die back in the war just to have her tax money not be used as bonuses for executives and dividends for company shareholders!

"That’s 15.3%, which is more than the 14% of income taxes paid by Mitt Romney and the 13.9% of income taxes paid by Rick Scott who spent $73 million of his own money to buy the Governorship of Florida."
Exactly. That's why the Ryan budget zeroes out the capital gains tax; because in America the Job Creators™ pay too much tax. Besides, if we cut their taxes more, Trickle Down will finally trickle down. Seriously. Any day now. Just wait.

 
At 6:24 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

MO,
We have to give the extremists some credit. When "Vanessa" accused me of "posts against gays" that were "highly offensive and borderline hate crime" she was admirably defending Just the Facts, whose closeted condition was demonstrated by his repeated comments about men in showers and watching them in the bathroom. He was also asking if JG and I were planning on getting married. Cute, eh?

They have my sympathy. I can't be easy being gay Republicans. Unless they are rich and greedy. The stupid and poor ones are the ones I feel for.

Not that there's anything wrong with that. No, of course not. In fact, “Vanessa” is quite the little progressive in one way, defending Just the Facts from imagined posts against gays.

It warms my heart to see them bond so well. I wonder if Vanessa is a guy? "She" could very well be, seeing how these extremists love to dishonestly use fake identities.

I'm sure Just the Closet Facts loves Van regardless.

After all, he did excitedly squeal, "You go, girl".

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Of course not.

 
At 6:57 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Dave Dubya "'She' could very well be, seeing how these extremists love to dishonestly use fake identities."
Yes. They give those of us who honestly use fake identities a bad name.

 
At 7:03 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

MO,
Yes, exactly. Why can't they stick to one fake identity, instead of playing the multiple personality game?

Maybe they're lonely and like only true believers, just like them.

Say, they've been quiet lately. You don't suppose they ran off with their tail between their legs?

 
At 10:49 PM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...

Typical of DD and Mo to use personal attacks on bloggers while posts they do not agree with, while claiming the high ground.
Hey, it's not my fault DD that the career path you picked is being a prison guard where you are paid to watch men shower, avoid their spitting on you, and get assigned to Defecation Watch. No one held a gun on you, you picked the job, and if your job duties aren't what I listed, stand up like and man and tell us what you really do as a prison guard to earn your tax payer funded income.
And MO, you haven't a clue about the failure Canada faces, the future Greece of North America.
Ron, so how much did Mitt pay in dollars, not as a % of his income to the IRS, to S.S. and then Medicare? Ron, you simply overlooked the money tax payers give to the exampled family of four in the form of Earned Income Tax Credit. “The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax" said Tax Policy Center’s Roberton Williams, (The TPC is a joint effort by the left-leaning Urban Institute and centrist Brookings Institution, MO's support link, not mine.)
Since this thread is about the sainted FDR, wonder what he and Elinor paid in Federal Income Tax each year they were in the White House?

As for Vanessa and I being the same person, I will not lower her to my level to respond to the wet dream of MO and DD. Pure fantasy.

 
At 11:15 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Just the Facts! "And MO, you haven't a clue about the failure Canada faces, the future Greece of North America."
Wrong. It's the future Britain of North America. Federally we're adopting (comparatively mild) austerity. Hurrah for cutbacks!

"Ron, you simply overlooked the money tax payers give to the exampled family of four in the form of Earned Income Tax Credit."
The EITC was called "the best antipoverty, the best pro-family, the best job creation measure to come out of Congress."
I'll leave it up to you to google that to see who said that.
Goldman Sachs, Countrywide and other connected Corporate Citizens piss away your future on bad bets and get your government to prop them up for the privilege and you're blaming, of all people, the working poor. Do you have any idea how monsterous and, ultimately, self-defeating that is?

Also, "“The basic structure of the income tax simply exempts subsistence levels of income from tax" (emphasis mine), hence:
Shorter Just the Facts: "The problem with America is that the poor have too much!"

 
At 5:01 AM, Anonymous Ron Baldwin said...

JTF at 10.49 PM asked, “Ron, so how much did Mitt pay in dollars, not as a % of his income to the IRS, to S.S. and then Medicare?”

What I recall from the published reports, Mitt’s total income was about $44 million and he paid about 14% of that in income taxes, or a little more than $6 million. That’s the simple answer to your question. But simple answers rarely tell the whole story.

The only way Mitt could have an income tax percentage that low (14%) would be to have virtually all his income from dividends and capital gains, which have a maximum income tax rate of 15%. With little or no earned income Mitt would pay nothing in to Medicare and Social Security.

The question you should have asked is how much disposable income did that leave Mitt after paying for the necessities of life. The exampled family of four with an income of $26,400 would have minimum wage jobs if both Mom and Dad worked full time. Even with EITC and a bare subsistence of necessities of life they would be very unlikely to have any disposable income after Social Security and Medicare taxes. As for Mitt, even allowing for luxurious “necessities of life” he would have had a huge amount of disposable income for other luxuries even after paying $6 million in income taxes.

Social Security stops at $106,800 of earned income so for the sake of argument let’s assume Mitt had $106,800 of earned income. Let’s also ignore the temporary 2% reduction in the employees’ side of Social Security because only the taint of “raising taxes before an election” allowed that 2% reduction to be extended for a second year. Mitt would have accounted for $16,340 of payroll taxes for Social Security and Medicare. That is four one hundreds of one percent (.0004, or .04%) of his total income. That gets lost in rounding.

Let’s go even further and assume Mitt had $1,000,000 ($1 million) of earned income. That would send an additional $25,903 to the Feds for Medicare, or a total of $42,243 for Social Security and Medicare. That would be an aggregate of .001, or one tenth of one percent of his total income. That also gets lost in rounding.

 
At 5:13 AM, Anonymous Ron Baldwin said...

JTF at 10.49 PM also asked, “Since this thread is about the sainted FDR, wonder what he and Elinor [Eleanor] paid in Federal Income Tax each year they were in the White House?”

The top marginal income tax rates were:
63% (1933 to 1935)
79% (1938 and 1939)
81% (1940 and 1941)
88% (1942 and 1943)
94% (1944 and 1945).

I do not recall any complaint about income taxes in all I have read about and recall of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt.

Today the top marginal tax rate is 35% except that dividends and capital gains have a maximum tax rate of 15%.

 
At 5:17 AM, Anonymous Ron Baldwin said...

Oops, a typo.

The 79% rate was from 1936 to 1939.

 
At 9:55 AM, Anonymous Vanessa said...

Modusoperandi,

You are a Canadian drunk living in a country that doesn't pay its fair share for defense in North America because of the US. The US gives big discounts on prescription drugs for your "free" socialized medicine. Of course if a Canadian has a serious illness, that person will come to the US for treatment.


Dave Dubya,

"No wonder the radical Right hates education, jounalism and science that doesn't fit their political agenda."

Did you get your "education, jounalism and science" from the prison library?

You are a big blowhard.

Looks like your "high skilled" job at the prison may be on the "endangered jobs list":

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7405232n

World's first robot prison guard
April 13, 2012 12:01 PM
A prison in South Korea is testing the world's first robot prison guard developed by the Asian Forum For Corrections. Equipped with 3D cameras and software designed to gauge a prisoner's emotional state.

 
At 11:04 AM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...

Ron,

Thank you for info on tax rates, etc.

You and I have gone around before about the impact of the taxation rates. Lets leave at this, I believe the federal govt. taxes and spends too much of 52% of Americans income.

 
At 11:39 AM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

Do I detect more closeted obsession with men in showers and bathrooms? Do I detect contempt and ignorance for an honest profession that protects the public from dangerous felons?

Tough talk from clueless mop squeezers. I wouldn’t be surprised if they live with Momma and draw government benefits.

Notice how they conceal their jobs while shamefully deriding others. Just like punk assholes. Not my term. This I got from conservative prison guards when I told them of the contempt shown for them.

I wouldn't be surprised if they are as sociopathic as rapists and killers.

We do know they are so ashamed of their menial jobs, or disability benefits, they cannot admit to them.

Bullies and punks are such small minded little cowards. All they offer is contempt, hate, and derision instead of information.

And they seem proud of their ignorance and hate.

I completely agree with my conservative co-workers’ assessment of the Trolls’ character.

They have unwittingly united conservatives and a liberal.

How about that?

 
At 12:22 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

Mr. Baldwin, along with assuring corporate personhood is made illegal (unconstitutional), I'd like to see the U.S. return to the marginal tax rates of the 1940s and 1950s. Along with initially reducing the security apparatus's budget by about 50%, it should begin paying down the national debt in short order.

Of course, this would entail criminalizing the funneling of profits through off-shore tax heavens, and revoking corporate charters when multinationals meddle in the sphere of government (i.e., lobbying and political donations). This day is in the future, and I assure you it'll come to be, as long as we're not shoved into omnicidal Armageddon, or poisoned and vanquished into a post-modernity state of chaos because of world war or unsustainable climatic change.


Just the Falsehoods!, is "Vanessa" your drag-queen pseudonym? The Greek origin indicates the name means "butterfly", however you've failed to show you've metamorphosed beyond the slow and segmented worm-like body of a caterpillar in an isolated cocoon.

 
At 12:54 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Vanessa "You are a Canadian drunk…"
{citation needed} (on the "drunk", not the rest).

"...living in a country that doesn't pay its fair share for defense in North America because of the US."
Feel free to lower your Defense budget. Also note that Canada, in the event of US/Soviet nuclear war, acted as the buffer (this meaning that any failures and shoot downs would've gone down/exploded over Canada. And no need to thank us for our part in the DEW, pinetree and Mid-Canada early warning lines. And don't bother to offer to help clean up the ugly garbage they produced (in hard to reach and environmentally sensitive areas), such as PCBs, spilled/leaked fuel, mercury and asbestos, as your country has already refused to.

"The US gives big discounts on prescription drugs for your 'free' socialized medicine."
Riddle me this, if Canadian medicine is so unprofitable why do US drug companies sell here? Oh, I understand. It's still profitable, it's just not as profitable. We cry ourselves to sleep every night knowing that they don't make as much money off our illnesses as they do you (if you're insured or wealthy enough to pay out of pocket).

And the next time you're gathered together with your extended family for Christmas, be sure to tell your elderly relatives, your just-getting-by relatives (and uninsured ones that've used the ER), and your military/ex-military relatives all that they should be ashamed for preventing medical companies from maximizing their profits. Medicare (exempt Medicare-D), Medicaid and the VA reimbursement rates are all below retail. Tell them they're crippling Mom & Pop pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, who only profits billions and billions of dollars a year. "Woe!" ask them "Won't somebody think about the margins of multinational corporations?!"

"Of course if a Canadian has a serious illness, that person will come to the US for treatment."
Few Canadians get treatment in the US, and those that do tend to travel to hospitals that are known for their expertise in particular operations/disciplines.


Dave Dubya "Do I detect contempt and ignorance for an honest profession that protects the public from dangerous felons?"
It's not that you're a guard. It's that you're not a Republican. Characteristics of in-Tribe members become weapons when they're found outside the Tribe. Think of it as your very own "Hilary Clinton pantsuit" (which doesn't apply to Sarah Palin) or "Obama teleprompter" (which doesn't apply to Ronald Reagan, or any of the many Republicans who have repeated "Obama teleprompter" while, without shame or irony, reading it off a teleprompter).

 
At 1:28 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

MO,
I see. The radical Righties have nothing against teleprompters, pantsuits, and corrections officers, as long as they are Republican teleprompters, Republican pantsuits, and Republican corrections officers.

So that would make it all just their usual mean-spirited, hypocritical, hate.

Now it makes sense.

I would guess that logic also means a conservative US Army World War II hero’s sacrifice would be great shining example of American Exceptionalism, and not be just a small drop in the bucket like a Canadian’s or some regular American’s actions.

This also explains why the Tuskegee Airmen were included as “small drops” too. That should teach them for not flying in a Republican squadron. Oh, wait, they were segregated by conservatives.

Thanks for clarifying.

 
At 4:12 PM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...

Ah yes, the liberal version of the Three Stooges have appeared on Tom's blog to defame, slander, insult, and lie about anyone who has the nerve to disagree with them or ask them a question they don't like.

Jefferson's Jockstap Guardian

Dave, the Screw, Dubya

Modusoperandi A.K.A. Mr. USA History

Oh well, another blog, another attack by the libtards listed above.

 
At 4:51 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Just the Facts! "Ah yes, the liberal version of the Three Stooges have appeared on Tom's blog to defame, slander, insult, and lie about anyone..."
Unless my memory is faulty (and I'm pretty sure I'd remember if it was), I've done none of those things. The worst I did was call you an asshole, and I only did so because you managed to read one of my citations, interpret it in bad faith, and attempted to throw it back at me as though (I can only assume) you thought it said something different than what I said in the first place (link placed inside "the working poor, the unemployed, students and the elderly"). You even quoted a part about the working poor, a family of four earning just four grand over the poverty line, and a bit on the elderly.
If you'd like to duck into any more of your own punches, I'm happy to assist.
Still, I would prefer instead that you learn to argue in good faith. Failing that, I'd settle for you simply learning. To help, in addition to my, frankly awesome, citations, I'll point out (hopefully, though doubtfully, for the last time) that the Genetic Fallacy is a fallacy for a reason. If I, both a Canadian and also a not-American foreigner with an exotic accent and the smooth, supple body that can only be made by the most strenuous and erotic Canadian dances, say that the sky is blue, the sky is (or is not) blue regardless of who I am (or am not). To think otherwise is to cloak yourself, willingly and idiotically, with remarkable hubris, in Tribal relativism. As a way to divide the world into a Manichaeist "Us" and "Them", it's fantastic. As a method for discerning truth from falsehood, it's useless. As such, forming any model of reality on such a basis results in a model that only matches reality incidentally, and one made worse by its inability to self-correct.

 
At 6:01 PM, Blogger Dave Dubya said...

MO,
Wow. Such a crybaby. He projects that we "defame, slander, insult, and lie about" him, as he calls us libtards. Boo, hoo.

Poor widdow boy...He can dish it out but can't take it. A typical trait of punk asshole bullies.

The Troll will never process what you just said. Too many of them ferriner type words.

If I may translate for him:

"Woo, woo, woo!"

"Why, I oughtta..."

"Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk."

"Pick out two, you imbecile!"

 
At 3:45 AM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

"...the liberal version of the Three Stooges have appeared on Tom's blog..."

Gee, Tom, you've lost top billing... ;-)

 
At 7:20 PM, Anonymous FDR said...

It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government. I consider it unthinkable and intolerable.

I would also like to add that if we can save the taxpayers money by implementing robotic prison guards in our penal institutions, count me in. Its called progress.

 
At 12:04 PM, Anonymous FDR said...

I just want to add one more thing in passing.

When government fails in its most basic function — protecting persons and property — civil society ends, and warfare begins. The rise of the welfare state has eroded respect for private property rights and fostered a socialist mentality that dulls individual responsibility.

 
At 2:50 PM, Blogger Jefferson's Guardian said...

FDR: "I just want to add one more thing in passing."

Please...pass on. May your god have mercy on your uncaring and narcissistic soul.

 
At 5:11 PM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...

FDR APPROVED TAXATION.

(CNSNews.com) – Americans making over $50,000 paid most of the federal taxes that were paid in the U.S. in 2010.

According to statistics compiled from the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by the Tax Foundation, those people making above $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 14.1 percent, and carried 93.3 percent of the total tax burden.
In contrast, Americans making less than $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 3.5 percent and their total share of the tax burden was just 6.7 percent.
Americans making more than $250,000 had an effective tax rate of 23.4 percent and their total share of the tax burden was 45.7 percent.

Out of the 143 million tax returns that were filed with the IRS in 2010, 58 million – or 41 percent – of those filers were non-payers.

IN OTHER WORDS, ONLY 85 MILLION AMERICANS PAID ACTUALLY PAID FEDERAL INCOME TAXES

But Tax Foundation data also shows that people who didn’t pay any income tax received $105 billion in refundable tax credits from the IRS.


But do those who pay no tax and their supports say thanks to those who do? Nope, they say we want more of your money!!! So much so as found in this report Americans are leaving around Tax time as it pushes some Americans to take a hike. (Reuters)
Last year, almost 1,800 people followed Superman's lead, renouncing their U.S. citizenship or handing in their Green Cards. That's a record number since the Internal Revenue Service began publishing a list of those who renounced in 1998. It's also almost eight times more than the number of citizens who renounced in 2008, and more than the total for 2007, 2008 and 2009 combined.

But not everyone's motivations are as lofty as Superman's. Many say they parted ways with America for tax reasons.

The United States is one of the only countries to tax its citizens on income earned while they're living abroad. And just as Americans stateside must file tax returns each April - this year, the deadline is Tuesday - an estimated 6.3 million U.S. citizens living abroad brace for what they describe as an even tougher process of reporting their income and foreign accounts to the IRS. For them, the deadline is June.

But lets focus on the sins of WALL STREET, instead of these facts, cause govt an do it better, like the GSA?

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The main figure in a General Services Administration spending scandal took trips to Hawaii, Napa Valley, and South Pacific islands, all after the agency's inspector general warned top officials about the excesses.

A timeline released by the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on Tuesday shows that GSA executive Jeffrey Neely took five trips totaling 44 days, including a 17-day trip to Hawaii, Guam and Saipan that he and his wife planned as a birthday celebration.

All came after a May 2011 briefing by Inspector General Brian Miller on his preliminary findings. While Miller was still 11 months away from publicly releasing his final report on GSA spending, he issued the early warning to stop the travel. But it did no good.

For a second straight day, a House committee peppered current and former GSA officials with rapid-fire questions about the spending habits of the government's real estate agency.

The outrage once again was bipartisan and many questions were aimed more at a culture of excess in violation of government limits, rather than the taxpayer bill of some $823,000 spent on a Las Vegas conference."


And of course the best part of liberals is how they love mother Earth and spending other peoples money to save it.

Reeling from devastating budgetcuts driven by austerity extremists, California in 2010 still managed to spend $205,075 to move a plant. The manzanita shrub was on a median strip near the Golden Gate Bridge, in the way of a highway project that was partially funded by the ARRA Stimulus.

So lets all vote n the moat liberal person running cause they do so much for me with other peoples money!!

 
At 6:41 PM, Blogger Moduspropogandi said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 6:45 PM, Blogger Moduspropogandi said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 6:47 PM, Blogger Moduspropogandi said...

I just want to apologize to everyone about not being able to handle my Canadian liquor of which I have had too much tonight. We liberals have so many ideas on how to spend other people's money for our socially just Utopian society. Our intentions are good, but the end result is always the same, total waste of tax payer money.

I also want to wish JG and DD good luck on their honeymoon!

 
At 9:19 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Shorter Just the Facts! (still), "The poor have too much!"
You can repeat that as many times as you like, but raising taxes on those who don't have much won't help much. More probably, it will hurt. Stimulus is more effective the lower down the economic scale you go. The only group that's done well (from the mid-70s on, but especially from the 2000s on) is those at the top ("…the richest 10 percent of Americans received an unconscionable 100 percent of the average income growth in the years 2000 to 2007, the most recent extended period of economic expansion.”. The only group.

Blaming the bottom half of the country for being in the bottom half of the country while at the same time advocating policies that keep them there (austerity, program cuts, school cuts, SNAP cuts, Medicaid cuts, etc) is probably the most ignorant, most Tribal, most vicious thing you could say. And it's ultimately self-defeating. When you fall (it happens) nothing will be their to act as a cushion. New Deal social welfare programs weren't brought in because charity worked too well. Charity can only do so much (and that is no where near enough. Social Security, for example helped reduce poverty among the elderly from 35% in 1960 to 10% by 1995 (and the future issues that SS has are comparatively easy to fix. Medicare, and healthcare costs in general, are far more problematic. Even with that caveat, Medicare's costs are rising slower than private healthcare, which spends far more than other countries for objectively worse outcomes). SNAP works. School lunch programs, too, work. Cutting or gutting programs like these, simply, knocks the feet from under those that are already on the bottom rung (and the USA is already one of the least economically mobile Western nations
The sentence "If only the government gets out of the way…" ends, not "...in Utopia", but "...in Pakistan" or "...in Haiti.
Stop pointing down. They aren't the problem. Point up. The people above you on the ladder who are kicking away your hands have far more power than anybody below you.
...
Moduspropogandi, Ab Hominem, it should be noted, is also a Logical Fallacy. It's not just that it's a bad argument, it's that it's not an argument at all.

 
At 9:50 PM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...

Hey Mo,
My post never said the pole have too much, my post dors however point out the truth behind who in the USA payes the taxes and who doesn't.
Your post supports the liberal theory that all income belongs to govt, and its not fair if some people get to keep more than others. I am not blaiming the bottom half for anything, just pointing out who pays the taxes and gets federal tax refunds for income taxes they didn't pay.

Then I point out why govt wastes the money it gets from the taxpayer because its not theirs , it belonged to someone else, and the did nothing to earn it.

MO you can't dispute the facts when they are presented, you can only defend govt.s need for more money every year. So much so that a simple freeze of spending at its current level is discribed as a CUT, when it far from that.

 
At 11:46 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Just the Facts! "Hey Mo, My post never said the pole have too much…"
"I pay taxes. 'They' don't." is that.

"...my post dors however point out the truth behind who in the USA payes the taxes and who doesn't."
But they do. There's more to just taxes than the federal income tax. Payroll taxes, state taxes and sales taxes, for example (note that those are all regressive taxes).

"Your post supports the liberal theory that all income belongs to govt…"
{citation needed}

"...and its not fair if some people get to keep more than others."
No. I don't care that some have more than others. Some inequity is inevitable. Some inequity isn't bad. Too much hurts growth and hurts recovery.
While your healthcare and post-secondary school costs have risen (in the case of the latter, skyrocketed) increases in productivity among most workers has not resulted in them getting the same percentage of a larger pie; all the profits have gone to the top. Trickle Down has not trickled down.
Your recession hasn't ended. Theirs (exempt the falling stock market) was over right after it began. Corporate profits, for example, fell quickly then rose back up above where they were within a couple of years. Meanwhile, you're still losing ground. Your health insurance (if you've got it) isn't as good and Medicaid is threadbare (if you don't), your kids education is considerably more expensive than is was when you went through (even if it was only a decade or two ago), Social Security is probably going to be your only real source of retirement income (after your CEO legally looted the employee retirement account, and after the recent chaos burned off 1/3 of your 401k) and your house, if you have one, and if you're still in it at all, is worth a fair chunk less than what you paid for it. "Half pay no income tax!" is an absurd rallying cry for someone as deeply screwed as you probably are.
There is class warfare, but you've got the arrow pointing the wrong way. And the side that's losing is "most of us".

"Then I point out why govt wastes the money it gets from the taxpayer because its not theirs , it belonged to someone else, and the did nothing to earn it."
Non sequitur. "They pay no income tax" and "[Different] they waste tax dollars" are unrelated arguments. General Services Administration spending and California moving a plant did not benefit the working poor, students, unemployed or retirees'.
Also, most of the offered cuts are in the most effective programs. Medicaid, for example, is outstandingly cost effective. School lunch programs cheaply help give kids (particularly those who chose not to be born to well-off parents) a leg up in learning (children in school while hungry are less able to take in and retain information). Title X, which all the GOP runners in their primary promised to gut, helps provide family planning assistance to millions of women (and their families) cheaply (and every dollar spent in it saves almost four dollars in Medicaid) and it's the only source of healthcare for over half of them. It should be noted, too, that the GOP plan is to cut Medicaid and pass it to the states as a block grant, which will more expensively and less effectively serve the least of us (and states commonly loot block grants to plug deficits or pay for tax cuts).

To be con’t

 
At 11:47 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

"MO you can't dispute the facts when they are presented, you can only defend govt.s need for more money every year."
You can't cut your way to growth. As the Mistake of 1937 (and, more recently, Europe) show, there's no such thing as expansionary austerity. Gutting what's left of the New Deal will make things worse, not better. Things haven't improved as its been cut away, they've gotten worse (or held the line) for a majority of the population.
The problem isn't that the poor are getting more (they aren't), the problem is that there are more of them. And every Republican policy seems designed specifically to swell their numbers. Your neighbor's $133 per month of SNAP isn't breaking the country. Cutting that to zero doesn't help it.

"So much so that a simple freeze of spending at its current level is discribed as a CUT, when it far from that."
Obama's nibbling around the edges is being described as "cutting to the bone". And not by him. Meanwhile, Ryan's budget (with its imaginary numbers, imaginary growth and very real suffering), which guts everything but Defense, is described as "serious" by Very Serious People even while it makes healthcare for seniors 40% more expensive (but that "more" isn't on the state's accounts, so it doesn't count, apparently). I guess granny, who's already cutting pills in half, can cut them in to quarters.

 
At 1:22 AM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...

"You can't cut your way to growth"
Government growth is not private sector growth. Govt taxation restricts growth. As the % of Americans who pay no income tax grows, there can only be one source for more money, and that is to raise taxes. Raising taxes does not stimulate growth, anymore that borrowing money stimulates growth.

Why do you feel so strongly that it is ok that 40% + of Americans pay no tax? Yet you do not even want to freeze the current govt spending levels calling that a cut, which is a lie.
"The problem isn't that the poor are getting more (they aren't)" Source please.
The problem is Americans making less than $50,000 had an effective tax rate of 3.5 percent and their total share of the tax burden was just 6.7 percent.

What I find interesting is you do not disagree with the reports from the IRS. You seem to be ok with what I just stated above. What is enough?

"Medicaid, for example, is outstandingly cost effective." That is not true, we were told when Medicare went into effect it would NEVER need to have its rates increased, but that is not what has happened, so how could that be effective?

""Your post supports the liberal theory that all income belongs to govt…"
{citation needed}" Easy, your position that it is not fair to allow some to keep more of their money and others less from the GOVT. supports my statement. Do you support a flat tax, NO, a value added Federal sales tax, NO, too regressive. You support a progressive income tax that taxes income at a higher rate, the more income earned. Your statements are that in order to help those who do not pay taxes have the same as those who do, the taxes paid must go to those who do not paid. Who does this, its the Federal Govt.
As far as state and local taxes,at least now, I can move to states or another city where the tax rates are not as high, its a freedom our system calls liberty, IE if I don't like it and I cant get it changed by the vote out, I can move.
Which I beleive is a freedom our federal govt is slowly squeezing away from us now.

Look you and I are never going to agree on this, so just accept the information from the IRS as I posted, and say thanks for the money to those of us who pay the taxes. That would be a giant step in ending the liberal class war that has been started by liberals in the USA.

 
At 12:34 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Just the Facts! "Government growth is not private sector growth. Govt taxation restricts growth."
*Sigh* When the economy is good, gov't spending should be less than revenue, paying down debt. When the economy is in recession, gov't spending must increase, priming the economy (and, it should be noted, a fair amount of the current increase is due to more people requiring assistance) and pulling it out of recession. That's basic Keynesian economics. Yes, that clips off the highs of economic booms, but it also makes the lows shallower and shorter.
Government spending on infrastructure, which is something that has been fairly consistently shortchanged, allows the private sector to grow and to grow more. Roads, ports, bridges and power (as well as schools, hospitals, police and fire fighters), funded or subsidized by the state, is critical to a healthy economy. The dreaded taxes that restrict private sector growth are also critical to private sector growth.
During a recession, heightened government spending on the safety net is critical to not having people living (and dying) in refrigerator boxes.

""The problem isn't that the poor are getting more (they aren't)" Source please."
SNAP averages a whole $133/month (and the average gross household income for its users is $731). Per person welfare payments since 1975 have dropped from an average of $238 to $134.

"Why do you feel so strongly that it is ok that 40% + of Americans pay no tax?"
The thing you don't seem to understand is that the bottom 60% of the population make 22.2% of the income and, after the basics, there's precious little there for the majority of those to be taxed. (And, again, they do pay taxes. That same 22% pay about 17% of the total taxes paid). See figure 7.

"Yet you do not even want to freeze the current govt spending levels calling that a cut, which is a lie."
Spending does have to be rationalized with revenue. The problem isn't that they're out of whack now; it's that they always run a deficit, even in [relatively] good economic times. (On a side note, permanently running a deficit only seems to come up when the Democrats are [nominally] in charge. Odd, that...]
There are things that can be cut but, again, the only things being offered for sacrifice are the things that most Americans do (or will, in the cases of Social Security and Medicare) depend on. The "balance" being offered by one side is "token tax raises for the rich, and screw the poor", and the "balance" by the other is "tax cuts for the rich, program cuts for everybody else". Neither of those is good, and the latter (the "let them eat cake" plan) is a recipe for misery.

 
At 12:37 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

"That is not true, we were told when Medicare went into effect it would NEVER need to have its rates increased, but that is not what has happened, so how could that be effective?"
First, I said Medicaid. Second, Medicare is cheaper than what the equivalent would be in private, non-quasi single payer. Third, Medicare's costs are increasing slower than private healthcare. Fourth, in the 1965 when you got sick, a lot of the time all they could do what keep you comfortable until you died, whereas now the options are considerably wider. Sixth, healthcare in general is a driving force for the debt, and it will only get worse as the Boomers get older. Seventh, Obama's trying to nibble around the edges, "bending the cost curve", working within what used to be the Moderate Republican stance (and is getting attacked for doing so), while the other party has resolved (see Ryan budget) to make it more expensive.
Meanwhile, any debt reduction plan that doesn't take seriously reform the healthcare system is no plan at all. So there it is. One can't, the other won't.

"Easy, your position that..."
That's how progressive taxation works. When I was poor I payed little, if any, income tax. When I was no longer poor, I did. Progressive taxation isn't theft; it's the price we pay for civilization. And the former is a minor inconvience compared to what the latter provides. I, for one, like civilization.

"....and say thanks for the money to those of us who pay the taxes."
1. I do pay taxes.
2. Those below me do pay taxes.
3. Really? Is that the problem? That your economic lessers don't bow down and bless you for it? Do you have trouble being that petty and small, or does that level of resentment come naturally?

"That would be a giant step in ending the liberal class war that has been started by liberals in the USA."
Yeah, take that, losing side in the class war! It's the liberals' fault that over the past three decades a majority of the population has been treading water or sinking! Who knew that, as the New Deal programs and regulatory structure were shredded over the past few decades it would get more powerful? It's practically homeopathic!

 
At 4:11 PM, Blogger Just the Facts! said...

"gov't spending must increase, priming the economy", doesn't that mean either borrowing from China or raising taxes? And are either of those a good things to do?

How about this idea, cut taxes allowing the private sector to have more of the money they earn, and cut spending at the same rate across the board to match the rate of tax cuts?

 
At 6:14 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

So, the Ryan plan, then (except he's backed of on defense cuts). Kudos.
If spending already exceeds revenues, and you cut revenues at the same time you cut spending, all that equals is what you had, but smaller and less able to react to the recession that such actions deepen.

The cuts that are easy (the worst of the Pentagon, oil subsidies, and farm subsidies that were originally intended for family farms but end up going to Montsanto and Tyson) have big, big businesses with big money behind them (biofuel subsidies repeal was a weird tornado of things that one or the other side typically don't like; big business subsidies to profitable companies and environmentalism).
The cuts that are hard have millions of single mothers, the disabled, kids whose only sin was not choosing to be born to better parents, retirees and the general bottom two quintiles behind them (in other words, nobody, which is why all the "Serious People" advocate plans that make their lives worse, in exchange for tax cuts that disproportionately benefit themselves and those above them).
Here: try making a game of fixing the budget (and here is a newer but less involved one. See how few (or many) people you can avoid screwing (or screw). I "played" both and no matter what, some hard decisions will have to be made. Just try to remember that a lot of those numbers are more than numbers, they're real people.

 
At 6:54 PM, Blogger Modusoperandi said...

Wups. I missed "doesn't that mean either borrowing from China or raising taxes? And are either of those a good things to do?"

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to be temporary. Their stimulative effect was minimal, because the tax cuts disproportionately effected those at the top, the cuts were too small at the bottom to have a big effect (a waitress saved ten bucks) and the stimulative effect of tax cuts decreases as you go up the economic ladder (CBO numbers predict a 0.1% difference in the unemployment rate if the top cuts expire, and that's the high estimate).

And as for borrowing (from China or elsewhere, look at the yields.

 
At 12:53 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Racist Scumbag FDR sent the Japanese to internment camps, thought you might have called some show to talk about the anti-civil rights prez fdr.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home